An Old Production That Needs A Rewrite
(Author’s Note: This is the 13th in a series of political articles for CommPRO.biz that I’ll be writing leading up to Election Day. FYI – My first public relations job was with a political firm, where I worked on local, statewide and presidential campaigns. In this column, I write about the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court hearings.) Arthur Solomon“It’s show time.”That’s how Sen. Lindsey Graham should have called the Senate Judiciary Committee to order, because watching the Supreme Court hearings regarding President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett before the committee was like watching a staging of a decades old show that needed a rewrite.Imagine sitting thorough the 100th TV re-run of The Three Stooges, the vaudeville team that performed from the 1920’s to 1970, except in this case the stooges were replaced by 12 Republican Senators and 10 Democratic Senators.’What was needed during the hearings was a complete re-write of the script. It was like watching an old Perry Mason TV show of the 50’s and 60’s, based on the character invented by Erle Stanley Gardner, during which viewers knew that Mason would win his case even before the show began, with one big difference. Raymond Burr, who played Mason, delivered his lines much more smoothly than some senators did, even though they had more than sufficient time to rehearse their lines. (But that’s one of the disadvantages of live TV for actors.)You knew before turning on the TV that the Republican Senators would defend whatever answers, or none answers, Ms. Barrett would provide. And you knew that there would be no surprise answers coming from her.You also knew that the Democratic Senators would press Ms. Barrett on her opinions regarding the Affordable Care act, Roe v. Wade, and other civil rights matters.And you also knew that she would deliver her rehearsed lines saying that she cannot answer questions until she heard the legal arguments.You also knew that the deck was stacked in favor of Ms. Barrett before the first senator entered the hearing room.You also knew the GOP senators would say that confirming a Supreme Court nominee eight days before the election was perfectly okay, even though the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Sen. Graham, said during an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term and the primary process has started, we’ll wait till the next election.” (I guess Sen. Graham must feel that since the primary season is now over his remarks didn’t cover the period when voting has already started.)“Hold the tape,” said Graham to Goldberg. Obviously the tape was doctored because, unlike when President Obama nominated Merrick B. Garland for a Supreme Court vacancy in March of 2016, eight months before the presidential election, the Republicans wouldn’t hold a hearing or even meet with him. It wasn’t a surprise that Sen. Graham would see things differently if a Republican president had the opportunity to appoint a justice.But there was one big surprise. It was a question by Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana. The GOP senator asked nominee Amy Coney Barrett, “Who does the laundry in your house?” Who knew that a person’s proficiency in turning on a washing machine and clothes dryer, and ironing and folding clothes should be considered before advancing a person to the Supreme Court. (I was waiting for Sen. Kennedy to ask Ms, Barrett, “Who tells your children to wash behind their ears?” He didn’t. Maybe because his time to ask questions expired.)There’s an old saying, “The older you get the more intelligent you get.” (Which I don’t believe.) The Barrett vs. Garland situations proves that the saying should be changed for the Republican senators to “The older you get, the more hypocritical you get.” (Which I believe). On Thursday, October 22, the Judiciary Committee, strictly following the script, (ad-libs not allowed in this show) voted to confirm Ms. Barrett, with all 12 GOP senators voting “yes,” and all 10 Democratic senators boycotting the vote. And since the Republicans control the Senate Ms. Barrett was sure to become Justice Barrett. That happened on October 26 when Ms. Barrett was confirmed in the full Senate by a vote of 52-48.While there is no doubt that Ms. Barrett’s elevation to the Supreme Court will result in a more conservative court, at least until a Democratic president has the opportunity to nominate new justices, there is a strong possibility that on November 3 it might work to the Democrats advantage. That’s because the new Justice Barrett is on record as opposing the Affordable Care Act and Roe v.Wade, and polls have shown for years that most Americans support them. Most voters who have opposed the ACA and Roe were already in the GOP camp. Most voters who favored the legislation were already in the Democratic camp. But there are Republican voters who approve of the ACA and Roe (polls show that) and some of those might vote for Biden. With polls showing most voters favoring Biden, it’s safe to assume that the former vice-president will also pick up the majority of votes from independents that care about the legislation. Sure the Republicans have their victory, but over the long term it might turn out to be a Pyrrhic one, because the polls have shown that most Americans do not want to see the Affordable Care Act and Roe v Wade overturned. But as voting is now underway and will end in several days, the question of what affect Ms. Barrett’s confirmation would have had on the current election is now moot because it’s a done deal. In my opinion, it changes the Democratic argument from what would a Barrett confirmation do to the AFC and Roe to what will the Barrett confirmation have on the ACA and Roe. Together with the spread of the coronavirus throughout the country, on many days with record-setting numbers, those are tough questions for Republicans to answer; easy ones for Democrats to ask and answer.Ms. Barrett was assured of being confirmed from the moment she was nominated and introduced by President Trump at his September 26 Rose Garden coronavirus-spreading event. The president had hoped that appointing a person to the Supreme Court prior to Election Day would give his campaign a needed shot in the arm (since shots in the arm from a vaccine to prevent Covid-19 would not be available until well after the election).Thus far, polls have shown that the nomination has not helped the president. Instead, the nominating process before the Judiciary Committee might have helped the Democrats. It provided an opportunity to reintroduce vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris to new publics and also gave her the opportunity to tout the Biden-Harris talking points of health care, women’s reproduction rights, climate change, worker’s rights, voting discrimination and racial injustice.In 1995, Justice Elena Kagan, then a young law professor, wrote a law review article calling Supreme Court confirmation hearings “a vapid and hollow charade,” the New York Times reported on October 14.“The safest and surest route to the prize,” she wrote, “lay in alternating platitudinous statement and judicious silence.”Justice Kagan might have been describing the 2020 Supreme Court hearings. The cast might have changed since she wrote that review, but the libretto remains the same, with the Republicans and Democrats sticking to their clichéd scripts.Watching a re-run of the 1960’s singing group The Supremes would have made for better television. At least their orchestrations were new and original. The Supreme Court hearings were orchestrated by the composing team of Trump &McConnell (with McConnell also directing) and the early word of mouth is that most Americans don’t like their tunes.
About the Author: Arthur Solomon, a former journalist, was a senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller, and was responsible for restructuring, managing and playing key roles in some of the most significant national and international sports and non-sports programs. He also traveled internationally as a media adviser to high-ranking government officials. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at arthursolomon4pr @ juno.com or artsolomon4pr@optimum.net.
